Muke is the new PragerU now. 'Introduction to the Law of Value - Marx in Minutes'

muke is the new PragerU now. 'Introduction to the Law of Value - Marx in Minutes'

youtube.com/watch?v=67HfnfLYr7U

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8RP8u5BGRBQ
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7
empyreantrail.wordpress.com/method-and-system/
youtube.com/watch?v=vum0-y47cvw
newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/harvey_versus_marx_on_capitalisms_crises_part_1_getting_marx_wrong.
youtube.com/watch?v=pWX4YUMRni4
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

yeah, fuck that. also, hi muke.

webm or it didn't happen

Fuck off and die.
Stop posting the videos of that fucking faggot ass redditor.

god I fucking hate muke.

samefag

Fuck off and DIE!

kys muke

Good quality! Glad to see new content.

Does Muke use ghostwritters? I know Roo used to in the past.

also muke you dumb faggot we TALKED about how you should stop personalising capitalism so much.

i still r8 7/10 gj now go read more marx again lad.

...

Roo didn't use ghostwriters. He literally stole articles word for word from WSWS.

What do you mean? he said "profits fall and they need to sell more but their is not enough demand for infinite products" not "demand falls so profits fall"

Remember when everyone wanted to suck Muke's dick and he could do no wrong?

Pepperridge Farm remembers

I couldn't watch past the minute mark. Very cringey.

Is it the animation

We already have an awesome series of videos that summarizes the Law of Value in a creative, entertaining way, and it was done by someone who actually knows how to read.
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

The thing I hate the most about Muke is how much he thinks he knows. He doesn't know shit. That's fine, but you have to recognize that and start learning. Muke is so arrogant that he thinks he knows enough to teach people about these complex concepts. Muke not only does not realize that you have to know what you're talking in order to teach someone a complex concept, but he doesn't realize that if you want to teach a complex concept in a simple way, you have to REALLY know that concept inside and out. I'd be fine with Muke's illiteracy if he wasn't constantly trying to do things that require a deep theoretical understanding.

He plagiarized from the WSWS but he also used his ex-friends (the ones who would go on to join RAIM) to write most of his more theoretical pieces. Compare the way Roo behaves in his better videos to the way he behaves during debates.

It's mostly the voice, Muke. But yeah it's the animation too.

t. muke

Why the fuck would you need to read Hegel or Kant to understand the law of value? Marx actually intended to write for the working class, he sort of failed in my opinion, but yeah. Could have just linked this pdf, it explains all the dialectical stuff about Marx.

Do you have anything on dialectics that's a bit shorter? I dont have time to read 340 pages right now but I wanna get a better understanding of this stuff.

t. muke

I haven't seen this video but I've been reading Capital, and I really don't see how the law of value connects to Communism. I know, I know, but it just seems so unrelated outside of some really low level analysis that is reached in a very highlevel way. He talks about things that are true under the labor thoery of value but also under any real look at things. Am I not understanding why he wrote this? I'm about 1/2 through Capital Volume 1 for reference and have read Wage labour and capital. I can almost never "remember" anything he says either, because Holla Forums has already "taught" me it so it's almost like I'm reading a bunch of Holla Forums comments gathered by Marx. Obviously, it is the other way around but does he get into something more later? Answer me Anons.

It's 340 pages because it deals with Marx' dialectics holistically, and explains the development from Hegel, Kant, Fichte, looks at Marx as a sociologist, as a philosopher, etc. - it's literally all you need to know because dialectics is really not that big of a topic, and all these "dialectical wizards" you can find in every Marxist org that will call you undialectical are all pseuds.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the other option would be to read Hegel, Kant and Fichte yourself and then expand later into social science of Max Weber or something, and trust me, you don't want to do that. Through that lense, 340 pages are condensed as fuck

Read the essay "On the materialist Dialectic", available in this handy collection.

Why is it that you all are scared of mentioning the only person who knows dialectics on this board?

empyreantrail.wordpress.com/method-and-system/

Why would you recommend people to read hundreds of pages when I'm right here. Ask me and I shall teach. None of you are going to get this by being told in any amount of videos or texts.

You may be right but you're a total hothead.

Insulting people on this board doesn't mean I have a short fuse. You have no idea the patience I have for people who want to genuinely discuss and learn or teach.

[s]

Transportation cost is part of production cost, so the same product traveling further to place B than place A has the transport cost priced in, so you have different prices for the same item at different location. You can also think of the combination of an item with a particular location as the particular product, in that sense items that are the same product have the same prices at any moment.

...

Capital, at least Volumes 1&2, are remarkably accessible.

If you ask me, Marx succeeded in writing accessible works of economics.

Somebody get this hothead outta here. And where's that DWP guy?

The left needs to stop shying away from recommending our foundational economic and political texts, no matter their size. There is no substitute for reading Capital (yes, I mean all three volumes), for example.

What Muke is here trying to do is outline the labour theory of value that Marx outlined far better in Ch. 1 of Capital. In fact, there is no evidence he has even read beyond the economic manuscripts.

Except the it is not awfully complex in and of itself. Once you make the distinction between use and exchange-value, and derive from the equivalence of two different use-values an equivalence of socially necessary labour, you're set to go from there.

Further, once you establish the money form as the sole socially acceptable representative of the immaterial relation of Value (after tracing its development), then differences between prices and value obviously and necessarily follow, as does the fetishisation of money and capitalisation of objects without value (land, honour, courage, debt instruments and collateralised obligations, intellectual properties etc.).

I've never understood why people insist on acting as if Capital is some insurmountable challenge. If anything, Volume 1 is a fun read, and the other two volumes are interesting, if obviously lacking the same polish as their predecessor.

...

Not to defend muke, he is shit /ourshit/ but you are consistently being one of the worst poster recently mr piratef flag.

AW is back
im both happy and sad

as if I gave a fuck about what you think of me.
at least I'm not a cringy illiterate, that get's his intestines pulled out, in a debate with Sargon, the man who isn't able to watch a video for more than 5 minutes.
I'm an honest and humble shitposter, who happens to be an anarchist that's all.

Funnily enough muke has another video dedicated to this: youtube.com/watch?v=vum0-y47cvw

cared enought to reply.
Also drop that edge, blades are not for kids, you will end up cutting yourself.

It would seem odd, but I enjoy conversations, even with people that don't like me, for a wide range of reasons.

TRPF has nothing to do with whether or not one can still sell; it has to do with how the constant need to make the output of value higher by producing more commodities using equal or less labour time inherently makes the rate of profit plummet and (re-)demmand an even higher intensity of labour in the same unit of labour time to even come close to a similar rate of profit on return of the next sale of commodities. the only way for the profit rate to (temporarily) increase is if you have things like asset bubbles which alleviate the profit rate for a period of time (as we saw mid-00s). it is this rate of profit that represents the aggregate of capital's failure quantitatively, and why those in charge of capital feel most motivated to be creative in political solutions: to imperialise (to establish new spaces in which labour-power can be purchased and sold), to wage wars, artificially produce value and delay crisis, 'promise' value, etc.

here is a good text that critiques of david harvey on his underconsumptionism by a very good marxist: newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/harvey_versus_marx_on_capitalisms_crises_part_1_getting_marx_wrong.

Mention Hegel and Anal Water will come out of his hiding place.

Proof?

Whats wrong with killing all bankers?

Did he actually phrase it like that? Because that is autistic as fuck.

Would your rate of profit stay the same since the price of inputs is getting cheaper aswell? Or wouldn't this also be a counter tendency?

Uphold muke lore
uphold muke thought

Some of your stuff is good, but you have a hard time admitting your blind spots, and it makes you look bad when you get cornered.
Some humility would help.

I'm not sure I understand. If your rate of profit falls due to less living labor and more dead labor this means the value, and the price of your products has gone down. If we assume their is infinite demand then even when the innovation has been generalized across the market and the rate of profit goes down you could sell a much larger amount of your products and have your profit rate go up. In capitalism however their isn't infinite demand, demand is made up of a definite quantity of wages paid to workers. Am I wrong?

LMAO Muke is currently in a stream with Coach Red Pill, a cringeworthy conman who tried to stir up drama in the sceptics community

LINK?

Link it my man

SORRY

youtube.com/watch?v=pWX4YUMRni4

Mukes position on anti-fa is honestly incoherent.

He's wrong on a lot of things, he was asked about the definition of fascism by Coach Red Pill and his answer was really insufficient, he didn't even mention class collaborationism or corporatism which was the core point of Mussolini, instead he quoted Trotsky for his "definition" of fascism which was lukewarm to say the least

At least he didn't quote bordiga and say that fascism is no different from bourgoise democracy

I'm just going to say that the whole "it wasn't real socialism" stance of ultraleftists make them really weak in debate. I just witnessed Coach Red Pill cornering Muke by asking why all attempts at socialism aren't real socialism, and Muke blamed it all on the CIA and fascism. If this was FinBol, he would have dropped the truth bomb about the USSR and shut him up.

Now he's talking (I'm not watching it in real time) about booms and busts and tries to explain everything with overproduction. I will say though he was kind of assaulted though by Coach Red Pill being there on surprise.

When asked about the USSR you have two options. You either defend stalin and the USSR and get dismissed as a crazy person by everyone who isn't all ready a socialist of some sort, or say it wasn't REAL socialism and try to make some abstract argument about commodity production or worker ownership which mostly likely won't work either. You can't win.

You can always condamn Stalin's suppossed crimes but recognize his achievement to make the USSR a superpower with a high standard of living, that's the stance the biggest communist party takes in my country.

I don't think anybody cares about commodity production or whatever. When confronted with the political views of a minority, it comes down to: What's in it for me? Why should I support this? Him saying "it didn't work at all", as he did on the stream is just retarded defeatism and discards the achievements of the USSR, no matter whether you think they actually achieved socialism. I mean, his argument was literally just "fascists just kill everybody" which clearly didn't happen in Russia since the Whites lost the civil war.

You can say that the USSR was a socialist society without trying to argue it was a perfect society or defend everything the USSR ever did. Liberals don't feel the need to defend every shitty mistake made by capitalist states, so we shouldn't be afraid to admit there were/are problems with previously or currently existing socialist states.

So when asked about the USSR (and you have a few minutes) you can:

a) establish that it was in fact the first ever socialist nation

b) talk about all of it's (quite amazing) achievements and how they relate to the socialist mode of production.

c) debunk some of the anti-communist propaganda about the USSR

d) talk about some of the mistakes and systematic problems of the USSR, their causes, and how a new socialist movement would avoid them in the future

It's not as easy as saying "it wasn't true socialism" or "Stalin did absolutely nothing wrong" but most people actually appreciate some nuance and will like that you're being honest.

Coincidentally killing the right people for the wrong reasons just leaves the actions open to historical propagandization. Had they gotten rid of all the capitalists because they were "the jews" and it significantly improved their situation, then it leaves the situation open to be interpreted as "killing jews makes things better" rather than "killing capitalists makes things better"

Well, in that scenario, the "Jewish capitalists" where already rounded up in camps. Wasting resources on a literal industrial extermination of them is just unnecessary cruelty and revenge fantasy. Even the USSR didn't kill the Kulaks like that.

I think you're over estimating how brainwashed most people are (at least in burger land) when it comes to the USSR. If you say something like "Even though stalin was murderous diactator you have to admit he did a lot of good for the quality of life and economy of the USSR" you're basically rejected as a fringe radical outright.

Possible. Even in that case I think "not real socialism" is such an ineffective argument though. If you say "oh yea the USSR and all those other states were hell on earth and Stalin killed 50 million people but it wasn't real socialism, real socialism has actually never existed!", then people will just wonder why 50 million people die every time a society even tries to implement socialism. That and it also fuels the idea that socialism is impossible because it just degenerates into an absolute disaster every time. You will just be viewed as a dangerously naive and stupid child.

I think the video is great, but Muke ought to stop stroking his own ego on youtube and start doing more videos like this, that are less personal and more informational on things

...

Are there any leftcoms admit the USSR greatly improved Russia and don't fall for the anti-communist propaganda?

I have never seen one. They usually don't make an attempt to argue that way, and think it's better to drop any defense of the USSR right away. On the other hand, I've seen anarchists defending the achievements of the USSR.

Even if you don't think the USSR was socialist you should at least try to defend some aspects of it since it is still, well, your own fucking movement. Unless you are trying to say that Stalin was not a convinced socialist - which is ridiculous to argue.

Usually in a dialectic, one modifies their own position as the back and forth goes on.

What kind of brainlet Leftcom gets stuck denouncing USSR?

all of them. capitalism generally does that.

One of my main questions still relates to the "LTFRP". The way it was originally phrased by Marx has always confused me since it rested on this idea of the organic composition of capital rising, and this being a problem because only labor can produce value. I think this has generally confused other people as well simply because of how he stated it, which is why it is common for people to interpret it as a demand thing. They think Marx is effectively saying that only workers can create value, because value is a process. Value is socially necessary labor time, which means something useful that is produced for exchange, and the magnitude at which it can exchange (mediated through prices) on the market is conditioned by the standard time it takes to make it. To realize surplus value, something needs to actually be exchanged, which confirms its utility and continues the process. Since capital can't do exchange, it can only assist in more efficient production, laborers in the market as consumers are the only ones who can realize the creation of value. So decreasing the cost of labor across the system while shifting those costs over to capital would seem to create a net tightening on the ratio of money available for creating profit to costs. That seems to make sense, but I'm seeing people in this topic claim that isn't what the LTFRP is.

In a sense it depends, if you just mean over time. At any given moment of course not. But theoretically an economy can reach a steady state where the profit rate, wages, debt, and output are at some general level. That sort of balance seems really tenuous and unlikely though in reality. Capital isn't actually completely fluid and able to bridge all gaps in profit rate, though it attempts to be through finance. I generally don't think the LTFRP is a major problem in capitalism unless we are talking specifically about full automation.